The Price of Black Man’s Life

Sign in Ferguson as riots erupt.


Congressional Black Caucus head Rep. Marcia Fudge






Former Mayor of NYC Rudolph Giulani




















The “Good Progressive”

Now in its sixth season the CBS legal, political drama “The Good Wife” is still one of the best reviewed and critically acclaimed series on TV. It is also very Progressive and it is not afraid to let this be known. The series is based in Chicago, the protagonist Alicia Florrick is the wife of now governor Peter Florrick who in the start of the series was a disgraced States Attorney facing charges of corruption and an infidelity scandal. Taking cues from the Clinton and Eliot Spitzer scandals The Good Wife’s creators Robert and Michelle King have woven a series that demonstrates Progressive thinking and displays it for the country to see.

The characters in the show seem a checklist of constituencies for Progressive.  It features Alicia Florrick, the good wife who gave up a promising law career to raise a family and help her husband’s political career, later she stood by him when he was plagued by scandals. Peter Florrick disgraced DA who fails upward, into the Governor’s Mansion, Eli Gold the Jewish lawyer and fixer, a gay brother, a bi-sexual investigator whose methods are questionable, the only Black recurring character was according to the show the largest and ruthless drug-dealer in the city, in this season he is implicated in at least 3 murders.

It is no wonder that Progressive leaders from Valerie Jarrett, Gloria Steinem, Bill DeBlasio and Donna Brazille (3 times) have made cameos on the show but aside of showing how Progressive thinking works in TV land it also shows how easily discarded their principles are. In this season of the show Alicia is running for District Attorney’s office making the show more political than in the past not that the show lacked that aspect before. If you want to see Progressive ideas and thoughts acted in action this is a great place to start.

There has been an uproars in Conservatives sites about Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist who was instrumental in not just devising Obamacare but in ensuring that the CBO (to whom he is one of its academic advisers) would score it positively.  At the same time he was instrumental in hiding the taxes that were hidden as fees to dupe the people into supporting the bill.

If that was not bad enough, he is seen gloating about how successful he was at this. The condescending attitude he displays rather gleefully as he spikes the football is infuriating to not just Conservatives but to many others including some supporters of the law.  For an economist he puts partisanship above his trade as he is quoted as saying in this Esquire Magazine interview from  November 13:

“What I don’t get is these stupid governors who are turning down the Medicaid expansion,” he said. “This is preposterously stupid. First of all, your low-income people get health-insurance, and you get billions and billions of dollars of stimulus in health-care spending. For example, there are one million uninsured Floridians who are below the poverty line. The federal government is saying we’ll pay to insure them, and, in addition, we’re sending billions of dollars to you. And Rick Scott says no. There is no basis for turning this down except to put your political agenda ahead of the needs of your state’s citizens. They say they’re worried about the federal deficit? Why? They’re governors, for god’s sake. This is one of the criminal failures of our political system. It is an enormous failure.”

He arrogantly sees as a failure for Governors, not all of whom were Democrats of not accepting “Free Money”, but it is really free money? Of course not, and no matter how creative he was in designing the law nothing can hide that. After 2 years those same Governors would have to find the funds on their own to cover the new expensive entitlement program, which seems to be ACA’s only success, expanding Medicaid enrollment. All the other promises decreasing premiums, keeping your doctor, budget neutral have all fallen by the wayside and the law in not fully implemented, yet.

In the The Good Wife, Alicia can sermonize about standing by your man, pretend she is not an atheist, defend a notorious Drug Kingpin, only to drop him as a client because is now a liability as she runs for office of DA, because  everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The show also excuses the illegalities of their own investigator, who bribes, intimidates, break-ins, steals, etc., does anything that she can to help her employers win their cases. The end always justifies the means.

The Legacy Media or MSM as I like to call them, has circled their wagons around Gruber. As Allahpundit reported here:

Those in the center-left press who have deigned to debase themselves by addressing a story of interest to conservatives insist that there is nothing much to see here. Not only was Gruber’s admission that the ACA was designed to hide its true costs and impact on the American economy already widely known, they say, but that the American public is generally to blame for Gruber’s mendacity.

They hate it when they have to hurt you, so don’t make them do it.

The Progressives and only them know what is good for you. The American people are too stupid to understand the nuances of such policies, so it is necessary to lie and hide the effects of those policies. The same can be said about other pet projects of Progressives, Global warming, immigration, minimum wages, unions, common core, etc. They know what is best, they need to get over on those stupid Bible Thumpers as Gruber is quoted on one of the 5 videos that have surfaced so far, the end justifies it.

Progressives wanted Health Care Reform, they got reform, that it has helped some people there no doubt. That it has hurt many others there is also no doubt, that it will negatively affect more people than those that have been help time will tell. As Eli Gold tells Alicia paraphrasing; “Americans don’t want the truth, they want nicely staged events where we tell them what the truth is”. That is how Progressives view Americans a gullible audience waiting to applaud their dressed up product, nothing more.


The Michael Brown Case, Update 4.2: The Media, at TTAG

Mike delivers a powerful and concise look at the Michael Brown case. HIs criticism of the media is well-earned and could cost lives. Primer from the linked article:

“If a criminal is willing to attack a cop, what would they do to the next citizen they meet?”

This point seems to be forgotten by those who support Brown and were likely the first to have to deal with the menace that Brown seem to be. Even the Washington Post appears to get it.


Stately McDaniel Manor

credit: credit:

As bits of pieces of information trickle out in the Michal Brown case, I’m compiling information for a new addition to the articles in that archive. The next article will be posted in the near future. In the meantime, you might want to visit The Truth About Guns, where my weekly contribution this week is something of a primer on the Brown case, the law, and the way the media makes self-defense more difficult for us all.

The article is titled “Practicing the Art of Self Defense–From the Media.”  By the way, please keep in mind that when one contributes articles to the publishing concerns of others, it is the editors of those concerns that usually write the headlines, titles, decide when to publish articles, etc. At the Manor, I wear all the publishing hats and the decisions–and blame–are entirely mine. At TTAG, and the other sites that…

View original post 31 more words

By Hook (race card) or by Crook (cheating)












The Old “Grey Lady” just can help Herself

The “Old” Grey Lady- courtesy of The Daily News

The ‘old’ Grey Lady, the New York Times just can’t help itself. There have been at least 3 stories that have been published in their pages that demonstrate that it can’t just report the news and not show bias.

It finally admitted that yes, there were weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq and there may still be some to be found. Despite of years of “Bush lied and people died” and there were no WMD’s in Iraq. it has now decided that there were WMDs and that some may still exist, today.

In a very long article the NYT describes the quantity of WMDs found and relates some instances in which our troops were affected by these weapons. Quoting the article:



So Bush was right there were WMDs in Iraq and there were well hidden that the UN inspectors were not able to locate them. But that is not what the Grey Lady wants to say, instead they disassemble:

The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built-in close collaboration with the West.

This is just a play on words and does not negate the fact that despite what was repeatedly said, Hussein had a large cache of WMDs at his disposal. The “active” part is real nice touch yet as Gabriel Malor explains that was never the rationale. Not in the sense that the NYT is implying.

Why would the NYT debunk years of Iraq had not WMDs? Well, here is the answer:

Indulgences, forgiveness and moral excuses

Progressives see religion, especially Christianity with disdain. The see those who follow religion as superstitious ignoramuses who are either mislead or worse Conservatives. But for all the disdain and loathing that Progressives aim at the religious they sure like to misuse and misinterpret religious doctrine for themselves.

Take the use of indulgences, what are indulgences? From the Vatican site:


“An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin.” Indulgences may be applied to the living or the dead.

In Medieval times indulgences were paid to the Catholic Church to wipe/minimize or atone for the sins committed during their lifetime. This doctrine as with many others got corrupted to the point the indulgences were sold to the highest bidder. Doing penance for your sins, if you could build a new wing to the cathedral an official certificate would be given for your penance. Your parents are long dead but they may not have been able to receive last rites or a confession to be absolved of their sins before dying, you could now pay or buy an indulgence for them and spare them the suffering in purgatory or in some cases Hell.

In Search of Meaning, why do they do it?

When Polish Jew, Henri Tajfel, left Poland to study Chemistry in Sorbonne, France he did not know that when he returned that none of his immediate family and few of his friends would be alive. The Second World War would find in France, where he volunteered in the French Army and later would become a prisoner of war a year later.

He would face a dilemma, announce to his captors deny he was a Polish Jew or claim to be a French citizen. In the end he admitted to being Jewish but claimed French citizenship. This act probably saved his life as he survived the war in a series of POW camps. This experience also embarked him on a quest to find out the reasons for prejudice and intergroup relations.

After the war he worked with a Jewish organization helping to resettle Jewish orphans and the UN’s refugee Organization, but it was his work in social psychology that is the most influential to this day. After moving to the UK to study psychology and graduating his research examining different areas of social psychology, social judgment, nationalism and prejudice that I want to talk about.